D&D 5E I really like orcs & goblins, and stories that incorporate them.

[Sunseeker]

Huh. Weird, but, I want my good guys to be able to slaughter hordes of sapient opponents without raising any messy questions of morality. Go figure

So your players are Orcs?

 

[Sunseeker]

But as you acknowledge, not all animals of catlike intelligence behave the way cats do. You can't explain the cat's behavior by citing its intelligence; you have to introduce this new variable "nature" which stands independent of intelligence. This really ought to be a warning sign for you that your hypothesis about intelligence and behavior is a poor one.

Beyond that, there's some messy ground when you start saying "evilness is close to animalness". Animals aren't evil, they aren't good. They're animals. They can understand certain patterns of reward/punishment but fundamentally, they have no conception of morality. At a most basic level, they follow their instincts which trains them to do things that reward pleasure and not do things that result in pain.

So if we were to argue that orcs are more "animalistic" than other humanoids, we have to apply the same standards: they do X because it gives them pleasure and they don't do Y because it causes pain. If you go out and slaughter a bunch of orcs, you're no longer a righteous crusader destroying evil, but you're a glorified exterminator. Ants may get into your walls, eat your food, and generally infest your home. In a sense they are an "enemy" to be combated, but they're not evil.

For orcs to be evil, even innately evil, they have to fundamentally understand that good and evil exist, and choose to remain evil. Otherwise orcs aren't evil. They're just roaches, or cats, or ants, or children.

 

[Slit518]

Fun fact: Neanderthals had larger brains than modern humans.

That I know, I was just making a comparison. Also, for their time (side-by-side), Neanderthals are thought to be smarter than the "humans" of that era.

Neanderthals mainly died out for several reasons:
1) Less population and breeding than cromagnon (early humans)
2) Less social than cromangon
3) Cromagnons warring with Neanderthals had the number advantage
4) Interbreeding with the more, well populated cromagnon
5) The inability to fight infectious diseases like cromagnon had

But as you acknowledge, not all animals of catlike intelligence behave the way cats do. You can't explain the cat's behavior by citing its intelligence; you have to introduce this new variable "nature" which stands independent of intelligence. This really ought to be a warning sign for you that your hypothesis about intelligence and behavior is a poor one.

I think you're reading too much into my reasoning as to why orcs could be perceived as evil. I wouldn't call it a hypothesis, as it isn't exactly science, it's a fantasy game. Though orcs do pack more body mass, fat, more muscle, etc... this could be attributed to more testosterone (I know, the irony, I'm bringing science into this conversation about a fantasy race). An influx of testosterone would grant more energy, a need to release that energy, and a more aggressive nature. High testosterone would make one feel the need to establish some form of dominance, and this can come in a variety of ways. Orcs, being less smart, and naturally more big (+2 to Strength, +1 to Constitution), portray their "dominance" by being angry, combative, aggressive, etc... Steroids are a synthetic form of testosterone, and what does that do to one who uses it?

 

[Wiseblood]

I am not going to sugar coat it. Orcs are evil and so are goblins.
Why? Because they do evil things.
Why? Because I make them do it.

I see people on here making arguments that amount to humans do bad things too. Then those humans are evil. If you cross the line you become evil. It looks like that line might be closer than is comfortable with regard to where you stand on moral questions.

Easy they flow, quick to join you in a fight.